DEVELOPING SURVEYING AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS FOR WOODLAND BATS. John Altringham & Chris Scott, University of Leeds

Transcription

1 DEVELOPING SURVEYING AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS FOR WOODLAND BATS John Altringham & Chris Scott, University of Leeds

2 Our rarest bats are all woodland species Reflects the loss, fragmentation and degradation of our woodland Protecting them will take management on a landscape scale To do this we need reliable survey and monitoring methods Defra commissioned a research project to develop such methods: 1. National scale - addition to NBMP 2. Suitable for volunteers 3. Simple and reproducible protocols 4. Time and cost effective 5. Capable of monitoring all species 6. Have the power to detect population changes A big ask!

3 Best approach? Catching? Acoustic? Both? Catching: Advantages Identification in the hand Other information Disadvantages Labour intensive Potential bias Low numbers, weak statistical power Training and licencing Disturbance Lure use: unknown bias, disturbance

4 Acoustic survey Advantages No licencing Rapid training Can cover large areas Sufficient data for analysis Disadvantages Bias quiet species are under-represented Woodland is the worst environment for acoustic surveys! Species identification Large data files to process

5 Acoustic survey Advantages No licencing Minimal training Covers large areas Sufficient data for analysis Disadvantages Bias quiet species are under-represented Woodland is the worst environment for acoustic surveys! Species identification Large data files to process The right detector Automated call extraction and ID

6 What detector? Reliable identification is not easy Preserve all the call content you can Direct sampling Preserves content and record continuously Time-expansion Preserves content but only samples 10% of the time Complete loggers Microphones for phones and tablets Frequency division/heterodyne Preserve too little content

7 BatClassify What it does: Detects calls from background noise and isolates them Determines a wide range of spectral and temporal parameters from the calls Based on these features, uses extremely randomised trees to classify calls to species with a given probability For each sound file it produces a simple output giving the probability of presence (from 0-1) of each species in the file (with optional sonograms) Process large batches of files rapidly Developed software for use with Pettersson detectors (D240x/D500x) Because that s what we use The user sets an acceptable threshold probability (e.g. 0.9) for acceptance of ID

8 How good is the software? Number of bats Proportion of those bats identified to a species that are done so correctly Proportion of bats of a given species present that are retrieved Species N F1 Precision Recall Barbastella barbastellus Myotis alcathoe Myotis bechsteinii Myotis daubentonii Myotis mystacinus / brandtii Myotis nattereri Noctule, serotine, Leisler s Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Plecotus auritus Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Software finds and identifies most bats correctly Less good at detecting Bechstein s, but those it does identify are done so correctly More training data for Alcathoe and Bechstein s will improve accuracy Rhinolophus hipposideros NOTE: Even at 95% accuracy, on average 1 in 20 identifications will be incorrect, so. Software handles noisy recordings well, but there is a limit!

9 Output file Sound files in rows Probability of species presence in columns Filename, date & time

10 The best acoustic survey protocol? Transects with spot checks generate continuous sound recordings over 90 min Start Finish Track Spot checks

11 The best acoustic survey protocol? Transects with flexibility drop the spot checks and use the time to chase bats and explore beyond the transect. BUT transect must still take 90 min Start Finish Track Area search extensions

12 Metadata: site, date, surveyors, habitat data, weather, etc.

13 Spot check v walked Spot checks and walked transects were comparable: Used in combination the transect is more relaxed and you have time to think and organise in the stops

14 Spot checks and walked transects were comparable: Used in combination the transect is more relaxed and you have time to think and organise in the stops detectability Species Conventional Mean [95% HDI] Area-Search Mean [95% HDI] Barbastella barbastellus 0.78 [0.61, 0.93] 0.89 [0.75, 0.99] Myotis mystacinus / brandtii 0.88 [0.76, 0.98] 0.89 [0.76, 0.99] Myotis nattereri 0.44 [0.23, 0.66] 0.36 [0.18, 0.54] Noctule, serotine, Leisler s 0.86 [0.73, 0.97] 0.86 [0.73, 0.97] Pipistrellus pipistrellus 0.92 [0.83, 0.99] 0.83 [0.68, 0.96] You are just as likely to detect a species with conventional transects as with the area search Pipistrellus pygmaeus 0.97 [0.91, 0.99] 0.97 [0.90, 0.99] Plecotus auritus 0.29 [0.12, 0.46] 0.33 [0.16, 0.53] Rhinolophus hipposideros 0.50 [0.27, 0.71] 0.61 [0.36, 0.85]

15 Probability of detecting a species over repeated surveys

16 7 4 1 Pipistrellus pipistrellus = 1 Pipistrellus pygmaeus = Myotis bechsteinii ~ 4-6 Myotis alcathoe ~ 2-3 Minimum number of surveys required to determine presence

17 Trial methods to determine occupancy in relation to detectability at good sites Detection probability Occupancy Species p [1 SE] psi [1 SE] Barbastella barbastellus 0.78 [0.08] 0.68 [0.15] Myotis mystacinus / brandtii 0.89 [0.06] 0.78 [0.13] 70-80% of sites occupied by each of rarer species Myotis nattereri 0.44 [0.11] 0.71 [0.16] Plecotus auritus 0.29 [0.09] 0.80 [0.15] Rhinolophus hipposideros 0.49 [0.11] 0.70 [0.16] Determine the number of such sites that need to be surveyed, three times/year to detect a 50% change in occupancy Species p psi Required Sites Barbastella barbastellus Myotis mystacinus / brandtii Myotis nattereri Plecotus auritus Rhinolophus hipposideros sites across the country covers most species (120+ for P. auritus, M. bechsteinii) More surveys per site: fewer sites needed More surveys & more sites: detect more subtle changes more quickly

18 National monitoring Survey a large number of sites, 3 or more times/year Monitor change on the basis of site occupancy now a very widely used approach Local monitoring More frequent surveys allow for assessment of population level changes at a local scale Site assessment Method suitable for site assessment/site inventory

19 Where next, given the resources? Recruit volunteers to survey one or more woods, each wood to be surveyed a minimum of three times/summer Equip with appropriate direct sampling detectors, and other essentials future proofing Give detailed guidelines on: Site selection Transect methodology Data recording File handling and submission Optional DIY analysis instructions/software Central data compilation, analysis and reporting for a national perspective, but scope for local studies